"How do we know they didn't keep the gun in the safest, most secure manner possible? Even the best laid plans go awry."

Accidental murder is still murder, even if it's a best laid plan gone awry. It doesn't matter if they kept the gun on the moon, they somehow gave their kid the means to get it and use it and he did. Maybe a judge will be nice to them assuming they meant no harm, but it is their fault. You can't get around that.

"You're not proposing any real solutions, just feel-good talking points."

I'll redirect you to this post earlier:

::
Here's what we do to solve this gun problem:

1.) Background checks
2.) Gun registry (not Carter's system)
3.) PARENTING
4.) Strict licensing procedure
::

Those are solutions. How we get to a replication of those solutions in the real world is the talking point. Instead of pretending my viewpoint has no merit because I'm in high school, talk.

This isn't a simple thing, Invictus. It's about lives. That's not an emotional argument, it's a plain fact. Gun violence kills people so we should do what we can to stop it. Nothing feel-good about it and nothing hard to understand about it.

"How do we know they didn't keep the gun in the safest, most secure manner possible?"

Because someone (their child) was able to take it and shoot some people with it, duh. If it was secured "in the most secure manner possible" so that the child couldn't get access it, he wouldn't have been able to use it to carry out the shooting. So that's how we know.

(And yes, I was being facetious before)

"Accidental murder is still murder, even if it's a best laid plan gone awry. It doesn't matter if they kept the gun on the moon, they somehow gave their kid the means to get it and use it and he did. Maybe a judge will be nice to them assuming they meant no harm, but it is their fault. You can't get around that."

Accidentally causing another's death isn't murder. That's a pretty basic thing that just shows your ignorance. You're talking entirely out of your ass.


"1.) Background checks
2.) Gun registry (not Carter's system)
3.) PARENTING
4.) Strict licensing procedure"

Again, how does that stop a case like this? How does a background check when a father buys a gun prevent his son from stealing it? How does registering the gun prevent the son from stealing it? How does strict licensing procedures prevent the son from stealing it?

Which brings us to just parenting. No law can make someone a better parent. So you really don't offer any solutions, just words that make you feel good typing.


No Jamiet99uk. That's what you suspect. The kid could have found the combination to the lock that his dad had hidden in the box of old tub socks in the attic. We just don't know. Something obviously went very wrong here, but it's irresponsible to jump to the conclusion that the parents weren't responsible when we have zero actual evidence to back that up. If and when such proof emerges I'll get right on with you criticizing them.

Where are my citations Botox! Surely you have some for that "accidental murder is murder fairy tale!"

So wait, are there honestly people in this thread that think that the owners of a stolen item should be prosecuted for murders committed via the item... by the thief?

So I suppose if someone walked up your driveway, hotwired your car and ran someone over with it, you should be prosecuted, too.

Fucking idiots.

He can't give citations because he made it up.

You expect more from Botox?

So, on the other hand, PE, you're of the opinion that if a parent, who legally owns a gun, leaves it loaded and lying around, and their child takes it and shoots someone, that doesn't represent any kind of negligence on the parent's part?

WE DON'T KNOW THE PARENTS LEFT IT LOADED AND LYING AROUND!

If it's your child, yep.

Should I satisfy your legal expertise and go with homicide by misadventure or whatever the hell fits, guys? Would that be more suitable? The point stands. If someone legally has a gun and it fires for some crazy reason, ricochets off a wall, and strikes someone, they are liable. There's legal standing there. That's what matters.

There's an easy way to solve the problem of whether they're negligent or otherwise liable. Hope on Westlaw and read a dozen Nevada cases or so that establish the rule or, God willing, find a statute that explicitly addresses it. That's the only way to find out, and if you pretend to know the answer without doing that you're talking directly out of your rectum on the matter.

Citation Botox.

The parents obviously neglected the responsibility of having a gun in some way or another. You guys are crazy to think there's a way out of that.

Hop on Westlaw, to be clear.

box_sox48, you're just making things up now.

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/homicide-by-misadventure.html

Homicide by misadventure. Go have your fun.

No lock is 100% guaranteed. Even safes can be cracked. The fact is the kid probably got it without the parent's permission and probably through extraordinary means. There is no reason to assume the parents irresponsibly left it lying around and even if they accidentally did, it isn't them being an accessory to murder.

There is nothing in that citation that explains why this applies to the situation at hand or if it would result in criminal liability at all.

We DO know that they're all a bunch of stupid Americans.

BANG BANG POW POW. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!

YAY GUNS and FREEDOM.

BOO terrorists and uhhhhh.....children.

lol.

Bo - You just proved you are too young to pass these judgments. Murder is homicide but homicide isn't necessarily murder. Hell it isn't even manslaughter. Every accidental death is a homicide. Even self defense is a homicide. Homicide is not necessarily a crime. So you citation is nothing of the sort.

Hey maple, has Canada banned those guns killed all those Canadian kids not too long ago? You do know that incidents per populace, Canada has a higher multiple shooting rate than the US, right?

You guys are harping so heavily on four words that you are completely forgetting what's going on here.

PEOPLE ARE GETTING SHOT AND KILLED.

Please tell me how your perceived rights on a 240-year-old piece of paper supersede that.

"There is no reason to assume the parents irresponsibly left it lying around and even if they accidentally did, it isn't them being an accessory to murder."

If you're the sort of person who accidentally leaves firearms lying around, you should not own a firearm.

Is mapleleaf here? He's the one guy I have muted.


bo_sox48, you just really, really don't know what you're talking about here. Even less than Draugnar, Esq., which is saying a bit.

I honestly don't know if the parents are liable somehow. I bet not, but they very well might. It would take some research. Real legal research, not getting the definition of a per-codification category of homicide off an online legal dictionary.

Jamie - I agree with that statement, but the fact is nothing of the sort has been provided as facts in evidence. For all we know that gun was locked in a wall vault and the kid managed to get the combo through surreptitious means.

"If you're the sort of person who accidentally leaves firearms lying around, you should not own a firearm."

Completely true. But there's no evidence that's what's happened here.

Not diving into the cesspit. Just answering one question:

"Are the parents legally responsible for any deaths cause by their child atm? No sure on how the law works in cases like this."

Laws vary by state but in most states a gun owner is responsible for any crime committed with his/her firearm by a person under 18 who "lawfully obtained" the weapon. That is, if a kid breaks into my house and steals a gun and shoots someone with it, I'm not responsible (legally). If my own child walks into my office, picks up my gun, totes it off to school, and shoots someone, I am responsible.

@ Invictus: Yes, mapleleaf is here. For your benefit, this is what he posted:

"We DO know that they're all a bunch of stupid Americans.

BANG BANG POW POW. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!

YAY GUNS and FREEDOM.

BOO terrorists and uhhhhh.....children.

lol."

@ Draugnar: I know. That's why I said "if".

Yes, about 30 deaths a year from highly publicized cases should render the constitution null and void. Sure

Assuming he is being sarcastic, +1 Santa... And it actually hurt to type that.